POS0990-HPR COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CLINIMETRY MEASUREMENTS MADE BY THE PATIENTS AND BY THE RHEUMATOLOGIST UNDER DIFFERENT EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS
Authors: G. S. Rodríguez-Vargas, N. Pinto-Florez, Z. Castaño, F. Rodriguez, J. A. Rubio-Rubio, P. Rodríguez-Linares, A. Rojas-Villarraga, P. Santos-Moreno
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2023)

<h3>Background</h3> Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease that affects different spheres of the patient, compromising their quality of life. Patient education for self-knowledge and active participation in follow-up is essential. Through the present study, the clinimetry performed by the rheumatologist (RC) was compared with that performed by the patient (PC) when educated through different strategies. <h3>Objectives</h3> Compare the clinimetry measurements made by the patients with the rheumatologist measurements under different educational contexts. <h3>Methods</h3> A Cross-sectional study was designed. Inclusion criteria: Patients older than 18 years with RA, in follow-up under treatment of a T2T (Treat to target) strategy and access to digital tools. Three groups were included: Group 1 education under an RA program with thematic deepening in three levels and duration of 12-14 months, Group 2 with short education carried out in digital format through original video, duration of 75 minutes, in Spanish containing 7 talks (10 - 20 minutes each one). Group 3 without any educational intervention. The three groups performed the PC by means of a digital form and a maximum of one week later they were evaluated by the rheumatologist who developed the RC in a blind manner. Disease activity scales, functional class and quality of life were measured. Univariate and bivariate analyzes (Chi-square and Wilcoxon for paired data) were performed to compare the RC and PC measurements in the three groups. The project was approved by the ethics committee. <h3>Results</h3> 28 patients were included in Group 1, 26 in Group 2, and 37 in Group 3. 100% were women. 51.6% presented erosivity, 81.3% positivity for rheumatoid factor and 79.1% for anti-citrulline antibodies. 46.2% had secondary level studies (higher proportion in Group 1). In group 1, there were no significant differences between the RC variables and those PC, except for fatigue (Table 1). In group 2, significant differences were found in 4 variables, as in Group 3. The RAPID 3 and PAS variables did not have significant differences when analyzing the total group or when analyzing by intervention subgroups. <h3>Conclusion</h3> When the clinimetry performed by the rheumatologist is compared with that performed by the patient, no differences are found in the group of patients who have in-depth educational training; while when the education is short, differences are found between the measurements of the rheumatologist and the patient, in a similar way to when there is no such education. These results deserve to be corroborated in other contexts. <h3>REFERENCES:</h3> NIL. <h3>Acknowledgements:</h3> NIL. <h3>Disclosure of Interests</h3> Gabriel-Santiago Rodríguez-Vargas: None declared, NORALMA PINTO-FLOREZ: None declared, Zohelia Castaño: None declared, Fernando Rodriguez: None declared, Jaime-Andrés Rubio-Rubio: None declared, Pedro Rodríguez-Linares: None declared, Adriana Rojas-Villarraga: None declared, Pedro Santos-Moreno Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Abbott, Biopas-UCB, Bristol, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Abbott, Biopas-UCB, Bristol, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi.